162 
iavater’s 
But fhould he meet with vifages imprelTed with 
marks of paft lives, or fenfations unknown to him, 
a reference to his models at home would foon 
enable him to unravel the myflery, by a compa- 
rifon with fome of Le Brun’s, or other profiles in 
his colleflion. However that may be, it is incum- 
bent on the Phyfiognomift to pronounce his judg- 
ment upon any one’s good name and private con- 
duct, only from proofs, and with great caution. 
The number of good writers on this fubj-eft is 
inconfiderable : a fortnight would fuffice for the pe- 
rufal of all their works, which deferve praife or 
comment. 
Porta has collefled the moft effential obfervations 
of ancient authors, but not with a due diftin£lion 
between truth and vifionary notions. His reflec- 
tions, however, are interefting, and explained by 
the faces of celebrated charaffers. 
Peufchel and Pernetti followed Porta’s example, 
without determining precifely the features of a face 
diftinguiflied from cafual appearances. This difcri- 
mination is..fo neceflary, that, without it, we might 
juftly apply to Phyfiography what Pope has faid— 
“ A little learning is a dangerous thing.” 
Helvetius, in his 'Phyjiognomia Medicinalis ^ has 
treated different conftitutions with great propriety ; 
and, notwithftanding his partiality for aftrology, he 
is 
